Sentences with phrase «with vicarious liability»

To enable the consumer to give his truly «informed consent» to what type of agency relationship he is willing to enter into with the Realtor, the licensee should give him a choice: Single Agency with personal representation and vicarious liability, or Transaction Brokerage with no vicarious liability because the licensee works «with the customer» instead of «for the client».

The Court reasoned that a requirement of deliberate wrongdoing is not incompatible with vicarious liability.

To the extent that s. 1 (1) of the Privacy Act requires deliberate wrongdoing, it is not per se incompatible with vicarious liability.

The decision in the Morrisons case is consistent with the vicarious liability doctrine as interpreted and applied by Canadian courts.

Not exact matches

You acknowledge and agree that neither HBO nor any of its affiliates, agents, licensees, successors or assigns has now, or shall have in the future, any duty or liability, direct or indirect, vicarious, contributory or otherwise, with respect to the infringement or protection of any copyright in and to your Invited Submissions, and that HBO and its affiliates, agents, licensees, successors or assigns are not responsible for the loss, deletion, failure to store or misdelivery of any Invited Submissions.

There was no contract with Holdings, and given that Holdings was not the owner, there could be no claim in tort for vicarious liability.

Two of the major concerns with the letters that I review in the article are that they (1) advance claims rooted in parental vicarious liability and (2) demand damages for a pro-rated portion of overall security costs incurred by a retailer, as discussed above.

There was also an interesting attempt to deny any vicarious liability on the basis that the pilot was not authorised to «mishandle or carry out any activities which was [sic] not consistent with normal and safe landing procedure» and that «in the event such mishandling occurred, it was outside the scope of the pilots employment.»

Of course, in the vicarious liability situation the justification is the principal's / employer's relationship with the actual wrongdoer and the idea that the former created the opportunity for the wrongdoer to commit the wrong.

In part 1 of our interview with product liability lawyer, Scott Maidment, we talk about a recent shift in vicarious liability for car owners.

Coupled with principles of vicarious liability of the company for the acts, actions and state of mind of management, agents and intermediaries around the world, it is easy to see why multi-national companies, with US links, are coming to regard corruption as one of their biggest corporate risks.

A similar exemption applies for those persons liable under the extended liability (s. 52) and vicarious liability (s. 53) provisions in CASL, in cases where the corporation, employee or agent, as the case may be, who committed the contravention has entered into an undertaking or been served with a notice of violation.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

You have vicarious liability for anyone who operates your vehicle with permission.

241 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Himark Realty — failure to appear at hearing; cease - and - desist; duty to supervise sales associates; vicarious liability; ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper service; salesperson inadvertently calls home listed on cease - and - desist list which demonstrates incompetency; broker is obligated to supervise real estate brokerage activities of its salespersons and is vicariously liable for their misconduct, limited only with regard to penalty in cases where the broker lacked actual knowledge of misconduct or did not retain any benefit derived from that misconduct; corporate broker, representative broker and salesperson each to pay $ 250 fine

287 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Uqdah Realty & Management Corp. — deposits; jurisdiction; fraudulent practices; failure to pay judgment; vicarious liability; notary public; disclosure of agency relationship; broker violated 19 NYCRR 175.1 when he deposited escrow funds into his operating account; broker committed conversion when his operating account fell below deposit amount; broker engaged in fraudulent practices when he illegally retained buyer's trust funds and attempted to qualify prospective buyer for mortgage by falsely stating their employment; broker failed to disclose his agency relationship to his client; failure to pay judgment; corporate real estate broker vicariously liable and charged with actual knowledge of violation of law because of representative broker's cognizant misconduct as corporate officer; broker is not required to deposit a refundable commission in an escrow account unless contractually demanded; corporate broker and representative broker's license revoked; restitution of deposit of $ 12,000 plus interest; notary public commission revoked based on misconduct as a real estate licensee

887 DOS 03 DOS v. Bravo - deposits; disclosure of agency relationships; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; proper business practices; vicarious liability; broker failed to provide agency disclosure form; broker continued to do business under prior firm's name after association with that firm had been terminated; broker failed to deposit monies received by her into an escrow account; broker failed to respond to DOS letters; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency by failing to follow up on the availability of an apartment in a rental transaction; broker failed to give a cash refund of a deposit received in cash upon tenant's demand therefore; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by its representative broker; corporate broker's license and representative broker's license suspended for six months

79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions; vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained

189 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Naftal - listing agreements; deposits; unauthorized practice of law; vicarious liability; amendment of pleading to conform to the proof; improperly altering listing agreement without the consent or knowledge of principal to show the potential commission split with buyer's broker to meet MLS requirements; preparing and submitting fraudulent MLS change notifications purporting to extend and alter listings; deposit of escrow funds into operating account; preparation of lease constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; pleadings may be amended to conform to the proof and encompass a charge not stated in the complaint where the issue has been fully litigated by the parties and is closely enough related to the stated charges that there is no surprise or prejudice to the respondent; continuing to offer properties for sale after preparation of forged listing extensions violates 19 NYCRR 175.10; DOS fails to establish violation of 19 NYCRR 175.12 for failure to provide copy of listing extension where extension was not authorized by principal; DOS fails to demonstrate demand for unearned commission where broker may have believed they were entitled to a commission; broker's licenses suspended for one year and thereafter until such time as restitution in the amounts of $ 5,000.00 and $ 2,055.40 is made